Today, Angier makes a really interesting argument about why biological-based arguments concerning the origins of gender differences are just plain wrong. She insists that women are innately aggressive, in fact, that women are naturally just aggressive as men. I think one of her most interesting arguments is that aggression is for those without real power. This is a really great point. After all, we are usually violent because we are frustrated or we feel that our voice is not being listened to. Even in war and terrorism, the violence usually occurs because the parties feel that they do not have enough power to get where they want (or need) to using only their words. Another example is a child throwing a temper tantrum. When the child has asked her or his parent for something and the parent’s response is not what the child desires, then the child turns to violence. Of course, women do not want to be likened to tantrum-throwing toddlers, but thinking of these examples really solidifies for me the truth in her claim.
It would be interesting, however, to examine why some women, or women in certain situations, feel that it is acceptable to use aggression whereas other women in the same situation might not. For example, some girls are more likely to resort to violence while others are more likely to keep quiet when they cannot make their point. Were these girls raised differently? Do they have different amounts of power to begin with? Or, is it just like with boys (who, of course, face societal pressure to resort to violence and appear “masculine”), that girls, all humans indeed, express varying levels of aggression depending on their personality and other factors.
No comments:
Post a Comment